there's a line when the president doesn't seek out information for the intelligence agency. >> thank you guys very much and thank you to all of our international viewers for joining us this morning. our breaking news coverage on the second time trump has tried to implemented the travel ban being shot down. that continues right now. this ruling makes us look week. >> the second federal judge blocked the federal's new travel ban. >> we juan to be free of obamacare completely. i will make health care better for you. the time for talk is over failure is not an option. >> our budget calls for one of the single largest increases. >> the budget takes the policy that president trump lays out and turns them into numbers.
we don't have any evidence. >> you're going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront. >> this is new day with chris cuomo. >> good morning, welcome to your new day. allison is off. poppy harlow is with me and we have breaking news this morning. a federal judge now in maryland becoming the second to block president trump's revised travel ban. we told you about the new ruling in our last hour. this is the second in just a few hours. a federal judge in hawaii put the new ban on hold nationwide. >> the president calling this hawaii ruling a quote unprecedented judicial overreach vowing to appeal it to the supreme court. all of this. the budget isn't officially unveiled. it boost defense spending a lot. we have a lot going on on day
six. live with the breaking details. hawaii federal judge blokd it and now maryland is doubling down. the key in these decision whens you read through them the president's own word choice when he was running really hurting him. >> that's exactly right. this federal judge in maryland was laser focused on the constitutional arguments about the executive order disfavoring muslims over nonmuslims and the judge says look i simply can't ignore the unrebutted evidence of the president's own statements from the campaign. he writes in part in this decision this morning significantly the record also includes specific statements directly establishing trump intended effectuate a ban as a mean to avoid for political reasons an action specifically directed at muslims. now the practical import of this decision is obviously limited
given hawaii's nationwide ruling blocking the ban as well. but this is another blow from another federal court on the legality of this new order and we haven't heard word from the white house or the justice department about the latest ruling yet but my guess is these cases will be destined for a swift appeal. >> thank you very much for getting us the scoop on that maryland decision. the trump white house suffering a second defeat on the revised travel ban. the president calling the first ruling by a judge in hawaii an unprecedented case of judicial overreach and he also said questioned jokingly was this politically motivated? clearly he believes it was. joe johns live at the white house with more. now two judges but the same problem. >> that's right, chris and the president making it clear he plans to fight this out in court even expressing regrets that he didn't press harder for it during the first go around.
last night when all we had was the hawaii ruling the president was also making it quite clear he plans to take this all the way to the supreme court if necessary. >> a new blow to a key federal policy holder. a federal judge in maryland becoming the second judge to rule against president trump's revised travel ban. >> you don't think this was done by a judge for political reasons do you? no. this ruling makes us look weak. >> the president talking tough after the ruling last night. >> this is the opinion of many. an unprecedented judicial overreach. >> a hawaii judge blocking the ban nationwide just hours after it was scheduled to take effect. ruling the state had reasonable grounds to challenge the order as religious discrimination and pointing to the presidents own words as proof. >> i think islam hates it.
>> is there war between the west and radical islam? >> it's radical but it's hard to separate because you don't know who is who. >> the judgment also citing statements from some of mr. trump's top advisers. >> when he first announced it he said muslim ban and he called my up and said put a commission together and show me the right way to do it legally. and policy adviser steven miller that argued the new ban would have the same impact as the old one that was blocked by the courts. >> mostly minor technical differences. fundamentally you'll still have the same basic policy outcome for the country but you're getting responses to technical issues brought up by the court. >> the commander and chief arguing that the constitution grants him the power to suspend immigration when national security is concerned. >> i think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way. >> the set back comes as president trump unveils his
first budge proposal. calling for a $54 billion increase in defense spending offset by massive cuts to the epa, state department, agriculture and labor department. >> the president clearly wants to send a message to our allies and adversaries that this is a strong power administration. >> just now the first trump administration budget just poesed online a wish list and only a partial list of priorities from the president and the administration. the full wish list is expected to go up in about a month. >> appreciate it. let's bring her back with the scoop on the maryland decision. also joining us professor at harvard law school. along with cnn legal analyst. twice the beating for the price of one i'll be looking at here this morning. you made a very good point that
people have to get this morning which is you have to separate politics and law here. yes you can go after the president for what he said about muslims in the past politically but doing so legally is unusual, why? >> this case raises a fundamentally profound issue we'll be studying for years and that's can you use the words of a presidential candidate to strike down a law or order that would otherwise be constitutional? if you take this argument to the logical conclusion the same order issued by president obama would be constitutional. the precise same words issued by president trump are unconstitutional because of what he said as a candidate and what some of his associates said now. that's going to be a hard sell to the united states supreme court. particularly since the court generally says you look at the words of a statute. now there is one case, a case
down in florida where they struck down a prohibition on the slaughter of chickens because they found evidence it was intended to discriminate against a small religious group in florida. that case will be relied on by the opponents of the ban but this is going to be very very important case in the supreme court. i predict the court will uphold most of this ban though they may at the edges strike down part of it. >> you're talking about the language that is cited in both of these rulings. the interview with anderson cooper when he was running talking about islam. listen. >> i think islam hates us. there is a tremendous hatred and we have to be very vigilant and careful and we can't allow people coming into this country that have this hatred of the
united states and of people that are not muslim. >> is there war between the west and radical islam or islam itself. >> well it's radical but it's hard to define and it's hard to separate because you don't know who is who. >> that was last march but even if the high court does decide that that can't be considered in this legally couldn't they consider what the president said last night as sitting president saying the order the judge blocked was a watered down version of the first order that was also blocked. >> i'm not sure how significant that is. the supreme court has not validated the first order either. it's not that they have found it unconstitutional. other lower courts did that. i think the really problematic issue here is that it wasn't, you know, yes you can consider
what president -- what candidate trump said but you also have the secretary of state and them all saying this ban is in the national security interest of the united states for a court to reject that on the basis of words said during the campaign i just think it's unprecedented and i think other courts will have a hard time with that. >> let's bring you in here. obama's ban was different. it was about people that travelled to these countries and not just nationalities in general but in terms of the record here and what we're seeing, how do you think this place out in terms of the appeal process? because the doj will have a different set of judges to deal with, right? >> that's exactly right. they'll be litigating two cases
at once if they appeal both in hawaii and maryland. and it got appealed to the three judge panel but this time around it will go to a different set of judges. two appointed by president balm and one appointed by president george w. bush and in the 4th circuit it will go to a randomly asorted panel of judges and the question is what happens if the two come out differently. that's when you can see them decide how to reconcile the two appellate courts. >> that brings congress in too because the senate may very well try to delay the nomination in order to keep him from being on the court when this case comes before the currently 8 justices because if the court splits 4 to
4 they then affirm the lower court opinion so we'll see the play of politics and litigation tactics by the justice department. >> and those begin early next week. heres something that's cited at the end of the maryland decision that's interesting. it refers to comments to wolf blitzer on this network as part of the decision to block this. let's listen to those comments. >> these countries represent 6 or 7 that we knew about. we're now looking at other countries and when we come up with additional vetting to protect the nation better than it's been protected there will probably be other countries we will look at and say okay we want you to improve but there's others with very questionable vetting procedures that we are rely on. >> so the judge that had been
saying that matters because this is still only the six muslim majority countries. >> what's wrong with saying we are evaluating the evolving threats to the country and we may add or subtract countries based on what we find out about national security. why that's why we have a department of homeland security. >> the argument that would be issued would be because we're giving you latitude as president on a matter of national security because of your understanding of specific threat. how is it specific if you don't know how many countries are involved or how is it specific if you have reports saying these countries do not present an imminent threat and that people from there aren't a threat because they immigrate to this
country. it's radicalization within the united states that's concern. >> it's depends on the standard the supreme court applies. but if applies more general standard does the president have the authority. is there a reasonable relationship between the six countries and national security it will survive so this is going to be a major concern going up to the united states supreme court. it's a long way from being over and i think the court will also give deference to the fact that although the president calls it just some technical watering down it went through a process of the justice department and state department white house council they took their time. they thought about this carefully. i think it will give deference to the executive to the fact that it went through this and it's a work in progress and may
add and subject countries. in the end if the president stops talking there's a good chance this will be sustained on appeal. >> also the white house released the first budge proposal. a huge cut for a dozen departments and agencies and big boost to defense spending. what do democrats think about all of this? we'll ask senator next. g piece in my asthma treatment with breo. once-daily breo prevents asthma symptoms. breo is for adults with asthma not well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. breo won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. breo is specifically designed to open up airways to improve breathing for a full 24 hours. breo contains a type of medicine that increases the risk of death from asthma problems and may increase the risk of hospitalization in children and adolescents. breo is not for people whose asthma is well controlled on a long-term asthma control medicine,
like an inhaled corticosteroid. once your asthma is well controlled, your doctor will decide if you can stop breo and prescribe a different asthma control medicine, like an inhaled corticosteroid. do not take breo more than prescribed. see your doctor if your asthma does not improve or gets worse. ask your doctor if 24-hour breo could be a missing piece for you. learn more about better breathing at mybreo.com. dearthere's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony.
together, we are perfectly balanced. our senses awake. our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say...if you love something set it free. see you around, giulia won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
we are following breaking news. a second approximate blow to president trump's revised travel ban. first you had hawaii and now a maryland federal judge in district court temporarily block the 90 day ban on immigrants. for our citizens of 6 muslim majority countries. this comes hours again after hawaii that halted that nationwide executive order from going into effect. the president didn't like it. blasted it as unprecedented judicial overreach and suggested this was about a judge being political. all right. so one of the interesting legal aspects would be it seems to both of these judges wound up --
let's discuss it. several things i want to get out of you this morning but let's start with the executive order. unusual for a court, a federal court to say i'm going to look at what you said. not just what you wrote on this executive order. how you feel about that. >> i think president trump is struggling to make the transition from campaigning to governing and he's beginning to learn words matter and how he describes something is going to be taken into account by members of congress and members of federal court. now a federal court from hawaii and one from maryland as they review the intentions behind his actions. it's striking chris that last night at a campaign style rally in nashville president trump said this decision makes us weaker. i think it makes us stronger when the world sees that the
most powerful man in our country, our president can have his executive orders restrained by federal judges. none of us i think can predict exactly what higher courts will do with these judicial decisions by two district courts but i think it's important to remember that president trump challenging judges is motivated. >> he is with a lot of lawyers that feel this was an unusual basis to evaluate legislation. what was said about it by a politician on the side as opposed to what's in the actual order. the knock is you guys just want to let people in and you want to ignore the threat of radical islamism and you want to wait for something bad to happen here and that's not keeping us safe.
keeping us safe is avoiding threat, not waiting for threat to manifest. >> that's a good summary of the position of folks that support president trump. as a member of the senate that participated in hearings where we pursued the vet progress see durs for refugees very few are coming into the united states from countries where we perceive there say threat as you mentioned in the previous section. the department of homeland security recently released a report saying that these 7 countries now six countries pose very little threats. they're not engaging in terrorists acts from the united states. so part of these judicial barriers to proceeding with the ban, part of these decisions rests not just on words said by president trump and his senior aids but also the assessment of
risk from these countries and the process by which these countries were chosen i'd say we already have thorough vetting in place and the proposals that president trump made such a big deal of his campaign is now carrying over to how he is governing. >> it's going to be about winning the battle over the executive order but the larger war about making americans feel safe this is about feelings and not facts. the president playing on that to advantage so far. we have a graphic here for where the president wants to put money and where he wants cuts to take it away. what is your feeling? you have a particular sensitivity to foreign policy spending and you feel the cuts there are wrong. why? make the case? >> well, president trump's own secretary of defense, secretary
mattis said if you significantly cut funding for the state department and foreign assistance you have to give the military more bullets because it will make the world a more dangerous place and to dramatically increase spending on defense and significantly cut spending on the diplomats and development professionals that work hand and glove with our defense department in difficult and dangerous parts of the world is unwise. it shows an overreliance on the military and untds appreciation of the power and effectiveness of diplomacy. i'm also really concerned about deep cuts to the department of agriculture. the department of epa of programs that help make sure that our water is clean and our air is clear. things that protect the health of average american families all over the country. >> what do you make of a republican president putting out a budget wish list of cuts and there's no entitlements mentioned in there? i know you're no fan of cutting
entitlements either but why ignore the place where most of the spending is done? >> it's striking. that is a real departure from republican orthodoxy but you do see moving it's way through the house an aca repeal and replace plan that does include significant cuts to medicaid so there maybe entitlement cuts coming from the republican leadership in the house to match up with the significant spending cuts. >> let me ask you about something else while i have you. the wiretapping claim. the president is now redefining wiretapping to mean anything that gets him out of a jam but while yesterday seemed to be a big day for those of your side of the aisle and those that believe there's nothing to the allegation, do you think there is a chance, the president said wait a couple of weeks. we've heard him say that before but do you think that there's a chance that something will come out maybe in this classified letter that was promised to lindsey graham there in the
senate judiciary committee maybe next week sometime that's going to say we were doing some kind of surveillance that somehow may have caught up some trump operative somewhere at some point and that will justify what the president said and this will come out being a victory for him? >> chris of course there's a chance. but i want to compliment leaders on the committee, president trump made this unfounded dramatic charge against his predecessor president obama that he was wiretapped during the campaign in a 6:00 a.m. tweet a number of weeks ago right after attorney general sessions was revealed to have testified untruthfully to the judiciary committee and he had been compelled to recuse himself from an investigation. i think that president trump was trying to change the subject and now several senior republicans in the house and the senate said there's nothing to these allegations but the president
challenged the congress to step up and investigate this and so that's what we're doing on a bipartisan basis and the insistence, the rigor and per sis answer the with which both republicans and democrats on the senate judiciary committee and house intelligence committee have pursued this i think is important because it means we're going to get to the bottom of it. it's possible that there's something that neither president trump nor the relevant agencies produced so far but we need to get to the bottom of this so we can move forward. same thing with taelgss of russian interference in the campaign through collusion with the trump campaign. we need to get to the bottom of this. there's a lot of smoke but there's no clear evidence of any fire and we need to resolve these issues so we can move forward. it's just one more example, chris, of president trump learning that words matter. that you shouldn't throw out dramatic accusations in an early morning tweet without backing it up. >> it will be interesting to see if this spirit of cooperation
will remain on the tougher questions of what russia did with this interference, how it did it and whether there was any unacceptable coordination or contact with the trump administration. we look forward to that as you develop evidence going forward. >> thank you. >> coming up in the next hour we'll get the republican reaction to the health care battle with senator bill cassidy. he said this is not what the gop was promised in a repeal and replace, why? he'll come on and make the case. also had the democrat in the house intelligence committee going to be here to discuss the president's latest wiretap comments. >> but before that the future of health care in this country is pretty uncertain right now. health secretary tom price working to try to sell the republican plan last night. we'll talk about that next.
tax prep to help keep payments low. you can find me on an oil rig, i answer questions small and big. hello, my name is watson. various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here. ( ♪ ) i moved upstate because i was interested in building a career. i came to ibm to manage global clients and big data. but i found so much more. ( ♪ ) it's really a melting pot of activities and people.
and replacing obamacare. health secretary tom price forcefully defended it last night promising it will increase choice and bring those costs down. but what is actually going to happen? what will it really mean for consumers if it is implemented the way it stands now? joining us now economics professor at mit. he's one of the architects of obamacare. also with us in the studio, very nice to have you here. sanjay, let me begin with you. one of the most poignant moments last night it's the real people asking the questions that their life depends on. this is case in point. a cancer survivor asking this question to secretary price. let's listen. >> medicaid expansion saved my life and saved me from medical bankruptcy. now i earn $11.66 an hour at my retail job and obviously i cannot afford to pay for my cancer care out of pocket. my life really depends on having
access to my doctors and medical care. why do you want to take away my medicaid expansion. >> we have one third of the physicians in this nation that are not seeing medicaid patients so if we want to be honest with ourselves as a society it's important that we step back and say why is that. why are those doctors not seeing medicaid patients and let me just suggest it's because the medicaid program itself has real problems in it. >> is that an accurate portrayal of medicaid as it stands right now? >> i think the first part is accurate in the sense that there's many doctors that do not accept medicaid patients. that's true. probably about a third do and the interesting thing is the second point that he makes. we'll fix it by taking away more money. part of the problem and part of the reason many doctors don't take medicaid patients is they don't reimburse as much and they think i'll get more money from a private insurer. why would i take a medicaid patient? now you can take more money away
from it. that doesn't make a lot of sense in the overall scheme of things. $880 billion over the next several years. how that's going to solve the problem and asked him several times and it's not just about money. it's about individualizing care. i'm not sure what that means. >> given that you were one of the architects of obamacare and you know the problems that exist with obamacare becoming increasingly not affordable for a number of americans. one of the core arguments here is that if you give americans more choice, you give americans more choice you definitely get lower costs. isn't that a guarentee. no it's not a guarentee. more importantly there's nothing in the proposal that gives americans more choice. this is simply taking away choice from the poorest and the sickest and the oldest americans would pay five times more than today. i don't understand how charging
poor americans more is a choice. choice as a word is the centerpiece of tom price's argument and there's nothing in in the proposal that promotes choice. you get more young people in the risk pool and that gets more insurers back in but the argument they also make i'm interested in your take on that and parts two and three will include they say buying insurance across state lines. does that fix the problem? >> well, that's been -- you've been hearing that for some time and it feeds into this idea that the free market can help solve these problems better than the government can help solve these problems it sounds good and it's hard to do. you have develop relationships in the hospital and the other point i think what jonathan is saying about this more choice issue is you can get more choices on lower costs. and it's not that plan.
you don't know it until you use it. >> they actually have what's called the skinny plan, a so-called jump plan and it's not going to cover much. that's not what people really want and you worry if that's the choice if people are going to be happy with them in the long run. if this doesn't make it through we're just going to let obamacare implode and blame the democrats. can you talk to us about what an implosion of obamacare would look like because there's liberal governors including in my state of minnesota that said this is unaffordable for american people at this point in time. what does an implosion look like? >> obamacare is not imploding and it's not just my opinion. another aspect of the
congressional budget office was pointing out that obamacare is fine. >> but it's not fine for a number of american families that told me they can't pay for it. >> absolutely but there's no risk of a death spiral or that the exchanges are going away. the problem is not solved by pulling money out of the program. the problem is underlying health costs are too high for middle class families and the answer to that is not to pull away coverage. it's to try to address the problems for middle class families by expanding the availability of these subsidies and by taking the next steps toward cost control. >> so is there a fail safe? what happens because there are increasing amounts of americans that cannot pay for their obamacare plan? >> well there was a belief that
it had a certain price tag to that. the costs were expected to go up. they were going up for premiums even before the aca was implemented. costs would go up even if it's taken away so people are looking at this as a point in time. i don't think it's perfect in that sense. i think that you have as jonathan points out certain populations that shouldered the burden of the cost. i don't think that's a surprise to people. >> thank you jonathan. sanjay nice to see you. thank you, chris. >> good discussion there. president trump breaking his silence doubling down on his wiretapping claim except he says wiretapping now means a lot of things. lawmakers say there is no proof of everything. the top democrat on the house intelligence committee joins us next. about what people want. honey, do we have like a super creamy cheese with taco spice already in it? oh, thanks.
except when it comes to retirement. at fidelity, you get a retirement score in just 60 seconds. and we'll help you make decisions for your plan... to keep you on track. it's your retirement. know where you stand. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.
very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. >> we heard this before and back up a claim and he says more will come. the top republican and democrats on the house intelligence committee say there's no evidence of what he has claimed so far. what do you make of the shift congressman that it is not wiretapping because i put nit quotes once or twice although there's times that the president didn't put wiretapping in quotes. there's more that will come out in a couple of weeks. do you agree with that
assessment? >> no, i don't. unfortunately i think this is utter nonsense. we do know from the president's comments that what he got his sources he just learned meant that he watched tv and took what he watched on tv and made this completely baseless game because this is not what people are reporting anyway and i also thought it was interesting that he said he can't discuss about it anymore at this point because it's under investigation by the committee. that sounded a lot like his taxes. i can't discuss those or show those because they're under audit. i think it remarkable that the president would have this kind of a flimsy justification for making such a scandalous accusation against his predecessor. >> yet even if there is no there there he did succeed in asking this question in a way that wound uptake agoway a lot of energy and time and resources
and you all have been looking into these russian allegations. >> i don't think so. i think primary problem has been what the president has done has seriously undermined his own credibility and while that has i think put consequences on everything from whether it could be believed on what his health care plan would do more substantially in the area of national security it discredits our democracy. place into the narrative the russians want to tell about america being a corrupt country where one president wiretaps another but it also undermines him when he speaks on the national stage and the american people really need to believe them in a time of crisis because if they'll make up something like this people are going to say what else is he making up? >> there is that concern long-term but in terms of the media working with nunez the republican ranking member on the committee this has made you guys on the same page which is not an every day occurrence and when
this first came out he was supportive of the president's allegations and there's a lot out there. he was defending the proposition. what changed the analysis for him. >> you would have to ask him but i would say this. we certainly have had a number of briefings and we had a chance to look into this to the degree it merited looking into. and when we have director comey to testify in open session we'll be asking him whether he is aware of anything to support this claim or whether this claim is completely false and of course if what the president said was true and obama had wiretapped him that would have had to have been done by the fbi and i think director comey can put this to rest. >> well also depends on how you want to define the range of the allegation. i want to ask you about the travel ban whether or not you think it's going to pass but one more beat on this.
do you have pause for concern that in response to the lindsey graham letter others were on it also from the senate judiciary committee that comey responded and said you're going to get a classified response from me in a letter sometime last week and if it has to be a classified one do you have any concern that maybe there is someone there. if his response is going to be there's nothing to any of us. >> the question that lindsey graham is asking is broader than the one that just goes to the president's tweets. but certainly with respect to the president's tweets i expect that the director will be able to answer that in open session because there's no substance to it but the director is obviously very careful about what he says and wants to be precise but i think we'll hear on monday that there is simply no merit to this and i don't think anyone should play along with this president's idea that he didn't mean what he said or you can interrupt
wiretap to mean many things. that's nonsense. he made it very clear what he was accusing president obama of when he said obama had been tapping his phones he wasn't using a scientific term. this was in the term used in law enforcement. contactually what the president is talking about. >> if you want to put it to bed, any nature of surveillance, that was done to target his administration or his campaign. otherwise there's going to be room left for doubt. let me ask you about the executive order. what do you think of the judges taking what the president trump says, president and as a candidate and using that as proof of legislative intent to say that this executive order should not move forward. >> i think it's appropriate to look at what the intentions were behind the legislation and you're giving the effect to a policy that would look at someone's faith or their ethnic
origin as a prekick to of whether they're likely to commit a terrorist act. i do think that this will be one of the preimminent issues on appeal and that is how much can you look at statements that the president has made or others have made as proof of what is really behind the legislation. i think that will be certainly one of the debates before the court of appeals and ultimately before the supreme court. >> do you think the supreme court would hold up a ruling based on his political statements and even on an issue where the president is giving such latitude about making a judgment about what's in the national security interest of the american people on an issue of immigration. >> i think that the court is very likely to apply strict scrutiny to this because it will have the effect of discriminating against people of a certain faith. and if they apply that test they'll take a look at what was the intent here. are they only looking at the text and have to look at it divorced from what it's intended
to do. if they get that kind of strict scrutiny they're likely to have a broad field in terms of evidence of intent. on the other hand if they don't apply that if they look at this in a different way then they may exclude that kind of evidence. >> >> what level of scrutiny would scotus use. we have a lot of review. the supreme court likes to look at things that are final and we're not there yet. >> one other point i would make -- >> quickly, please. >> the president said last night this made the country look weak. the real issue here is that it makes him look weak. it makes the administration look less than competent. this is why, again, i think he's lashing out at federal judges that now, too, have issued the same decision. but i think that's at the heart of him being upset about this. >> congressman, thank you for the input as always on "new day". coming up, president trump hopes to make good on his
promise to slash funding for several federal agencies. his top target, the epa. funding he hopes will be cut by 31%. we'll get reaction next from the senate who has called climate change the greatest hoax. or maybe the day you realized your baby was not a baby anymore. every subaru is built to earn your trust. because we know what you're trusting us with. subaru. kelley blue book's most trusted brand. and best overall brand. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. we have large quantities of excitement. goodbye.
the president's first budget just unveiled this morning issues a big blow to the environmental protection agency. that is likely welcome news to oklahoma republican senator james inhofe. he spent years questioning what he calls his stereo over man made climate change. remember this moment two years ago, he held up that snowball when he was talking about climate change. the senator joins us now. thank you for joining us, senator. >> nice to be with you, poppy. >> this budget, a 31% cut to the epa, $2.6 billion cut away. that's what the president wants. this is the agency that regulates a lot of agency in this country including protecting clean water, prote protecting against things like what happened in flint, michigan. are you comfortable with this cut? is this a good cut for the american people? >> oh, yeah, it's a good consult for the american people. keep in mind all the functions
they're supposed to be performing -- i have to say this as i did on the senate floor yesterday, the clean air act amendments were very successful. all these things have worked, our air is cleaner, pollution is down in spite of the fact we drive twice as many miles. yeah, it's the nature, poppy, of a bureaucracy. if you cut their budget, then they're going to try to take the things that are popular back home and cut those. i wouldn't be concerned about that except now we have a different director of the epa and he's not going to let that happen. >> he went to the white house according to "the new york times" yesterday and asked for less of a cut in the budget than he got. >> i wasn't aware that he did that. he'll figure out a way to do it. we want to deliver the services, make things clean, but we want to take all this stuff that comes out of the epa that's brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren't true -- >> let's talk about that assessment and that assertion of
brainwashing. the guy running the epa, scott pruitt, as you know, climbed by many a climate change denier. he refused to answer wolf's question ability whether he would allow climate change research. he sued the epa numerous times when he was attorney general of oklahoma. he sent letters as attorney general to federal agencies that were written by energy companies themselves. they drafted part of these letters, and he just said a few weeks ago he does not believe carbon dioxide is the primary contributor to global warming. that puts him at odds with almost all climate scientists. what's the brainwashing you're referring to. >> first of all, i know this guy and know him well. first of all, he has actually sued oil companies on three occasions, major lawsuits when he was attorney general for the state of oklahoma. yes, he did sue the epa, but so did more than half of the sta s states -- of all 50 states, 27
had lawsuits against the epa because of their aggressive, overregulation in different areas that was very setmental to our economy. so i think he has done a good job. in fact, you can't find -- i don't believe you can find an attorney general that doesn't think very highly of scott pruitt and the job he did as the attorney general for oklahoma. >> let's talk about your home state of oklahoma. these are the folks that you represent. you're dealing in your state with hundreds of earthquakes, a number over magnitude 3.0. these are man made earthquakes, caused by the pumping of wastewater from fracking for oil back into the ground. we know that. i've covered it, covered it in a number of states. it's the epa that regulates that, part of their mandate. are you comfortable with $2.6 billion cuts to the epa, cuts, sir, that may mean more of these earthquakes in your home state?
you comfortable with that the. >> you're assuming that's what they're going to be doing. actually the jurisdiction of that is the corporation commission of the state of oklahoma. it's not the epa. >> no, it is the epa. let's pull up -- part of their mandate from their website says they regulate, the construction, operation, permitting, closure of injection wells used to place these fluids under ground for storage or proposal. if any money gets cut from that, are you comfortable with that? >> first of all, that's not going to cut the activity they would be doing in terms of earthquakes, in terms of something, groundwater that might be causing something. the balls are still in the air on that. they are working on that, have good people working on it. that has nothing to do with the cuts of the individuals that are out there spending all their time -- >> how do you know their jobs won't be cut, senator? >> well, because i know scott pruitt. i know a lot of the people, as was pretty well documented yesterday in one of the
newspapers. i do know they're going to turn it back into an agency that is going to be concerned about the environment, going to be concerned about clean water, clean air. i have every confidence. let's keep in mind, the guy running that now is no different than the attorneys general of all the other states because all of them were feeling the same aggressive abuse that was coming out of the epa that was not designed to do that. >> senator, we're out of time. i wanted to get your take on health care. we'll have you back. thank you for joining us on "new day." >> thank you, poppy. >> we're following a lot of news this morning. let's get right to it. >> we're going to fight this terrible ruling. we're going to win. >> a second federal judge has blocked the president's new travel ban. >> the revised executive order is unconstitutional and unlawful. >> the president's own words are coming back to haunt him. >> i see no